IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 51950/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
T. S. Shivakumar Aged about 32 years, S/o. Y. K. Swamy, No.356, Bannur Road, Yerganahalli, Mysuru – 570 010. … Petitioner (By Sri. Vinaya Keerthy M., Advocate) And:
1. Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat, Mysuru 570 004.
2. Executive Officer Taluk Panchayat, Mysuru 570 026.
3. Secretary Alanahalli Grama Panchayat Mysuru 570 026. …Respondents (By Sri. B. J. Somayaji, Adv. for R1 to R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order No.DEV-3/11/2019-20 dated 29.11.2019 issued by the 1st respondent (Annexure-G) This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Issue notice to the respondents.
Sri. B. J. Somayaji, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3.
2. Petitioner states that he is the owner of Site No.602 situated at Alanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk and he is stated to have purchased the said property through a registered sale deed dated 23.09.2017. It is submitted that his vendor had formed a layout and as regards the site in question, Form-11(B) was obtained from the competent authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been paying taxes. Petitioner submits that a communication at Annexure-G has been addressed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Mysore, wherein the Executive Officer has been directed to verify and if it is found that Form-11(B) has been issued contrary to the Rules, necessary steps to be taken for cancellation of Form-11(B) and also to take action to vacate and obtain occupation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if it is the case that there is encroachment of public land or land vested with the public authority, action could be initiated under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Encroachment) Rules, 2011 by the Executive Officer.
4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation and complaint is as regards encroachment of road area as per the private layout formed by the vendor of the petitioner and no case is made out as regards encroachment of public property.
5. It is noticed that Annexure-G is only a communication addressed to the Executive Officer and is not an executable order. In light of the same, petition is disposed off without adjudicating as regards to the validity of Annexure-G noting the nature of the communication. It is, however, made clear that Annexure-G cannot be construed to be any direction by the Chief Executive Officer and is only a communication recommending for action in accordance with law. The respondent is at liberty to take action only if there is encroachment of public land or land vested with the authority. However, if there is any other illegality, the respondent is permitted to take action after affording an opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law.
Petition is disposed off subject to above observations. Contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE VP